Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex Chicanery
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 14, 2006 | Wall Street Journal

Posted on 11/14/2006 10:55:16 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One reason so many Americans despise politicians is because of the contempt that many politicians have for their fellow Americans. A case in point is the way the Massachusetts legislature used a procedural ruse to deny the voters even a chance to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Recall that in 2003 four of seven Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justices declared gay marriage a constitutional right. In response, opponents collected 170,000 signatures to support a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to make clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. But to get on the ballot, the amendment must also be voted on by a joint session of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. Under the state constitution, 25% of the legislators must agree to put an amendment on the ballot, provided the proposal has garnered at least 25,000 signatures, which this one easily did.

Last week, the pols denied the voters even that much with a procedural trick that recessed the legislature until just hours before its term expires next January. By the time the lawmakers return, they won't have enough time to vote up or down on the measure, thus dodging a vote on a measure that 170,000 of their constituents decided merited space on the ballot. This leaves intact the judicial same-sex fiat.

"The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade," explained Democratic Representative Michael Costello. "It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: amendment; gaymarriage; gays; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; homosexuals; legislature; liberals; ma; massachusetts; politicians; politics; proceduralmaneuver; referendum; socialists; utopians; voters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 11/14/2006 10:55:19 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I should not be surprised by now to witness such crap coming out of the land of the Winter Soldier and the Drunk Swimmah!


2 posted on 11/14/2006 10:56:21 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Mashed potatoes, gravy, and cranberry sauce! Wooooooo-oooooooo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What the American people want doesn't matter to LIBERALS.


3 posted on 11/14/2006 11:01:16 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Amen


4 posted on 11/14/2006 11:07:12 AM PST by Edgerunner (Better RED than DEAD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Any way to make this a denial of due process issue?


5 posted on 11/14/2006 11:09:01 AM PST by bordergal (There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of men bad enough for this treachery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The whole thing is appalling from start to finish. First the lawyers who plot the thing out. Then the power-grabbing judges who force their will on all. Now this. One thing should be clear to all but isn't. Even those against homosexual marriage have ceded foundational ground, premises, that all lead back to Sodom. You aren't ever going to win if you start out delivering a valentine to the opposition. Look at that heart again. It's not red; it's white. And it's not a heart; it's a flag. And you're waving it.

Bork was right.

6 posted on 11/14/2006 11:14:49 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bordergal

Funny the politician should talk about hand guns and hand grenades in thwarting the will of 170,000 voters - those are two tools that have been commonly used to overthrow tyrants throughout history.


7 posted on 11/14/2006 11:16:43 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This leaves intact the judicial same-sex fiat.

Not under American law. Here, the people's representatives, and sometimes the people themselves, make the law. The judiciary is only delegated to apply the law. Where the judiciary oversteps its authority, it's true that one option is to explicitly pass legislation affirming what the court has tried to deny. But that's in a way giving the court too much deference.

There's another option: If a court makes a ruling that in a matter where it lacks jurisdiction, ignore it. It's irrelevant, because legally, it didn't happen. Legislative bodies, municipalities, and even individuals need to get this straight.

Courts are made up of human beings, who are fallible and love power. Like the Pharisees, they will always be tempted to assume the obedience they receive follows not from their office, but their person. They will push the limits of their authority until they meet appropriate resistance.

Now that I think of it, ignoring rulings like the "gay marriage" fiat may not be enough. The only thing sufficient is laughter.

8 posted on 11/14/2006 11:21:11 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot.

It's not a civil rights issue a-hole!! I suppose throwing idiots like this out of office has about a snowball's chance in hell in MA!

9 posted on 11/14/2006 11:22:09 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
I completely agree. Could someone please show me where in the US Constitution it guarantees a US citizen the civil right of the freedom of sexual perversion? If so, how about any perversion goes?

The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects

Posted on 10/14/2005 5:03:29 AM EDT by Exton1

10 posted on 11/14/2006 11:45:58 AM PST by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Isn't Romney the governor of this state?


11 posted on 11/14/2006 11:47:38 AM PST by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
"It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot.

You know, the voting booth is the last bastion of the racist. People can go in that booth and vote out of racist prejudice till the cows come home. Let's do somethin' about that. From now on if a Progressive candidate or cause is voted down it should be declared prima facie a racist vote and thrown out.

12 posted on 11/14/2006 11:51:44 AM PST by ichabod1 ("For make benefit of Our Glorious Socializt Revolution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Republican officeholders in Massachusetts can now pretty much caucus in a broom closet. After the election last week, the composition of the Mass. legislature is even more lopsided than it was before. (Senate: 35D 5R ; House: 141D 19R).

The Mass. legislature has ignored the will of the people on many occasions. They once pulled the same stunt (as with the marriage amendment) on a petition to repeal a "temporary" income tax. The tax (needless to say) is still in effect. They also voted themselves a pay raise in the dead of night. Unwanted bills are routinely delayed and then "quick-gaveled" (tabled without discussion) at a moment when no one is paying attention.

The level of political corruption in Massachusetts is hard to fathom. Howie Carr has written and spoken extensively about this, showing how thousands of people are bought off by graft and patronage. Entire extended families work for the State - provided jobs by legislators in exchange for their loyalty. Turnpike toll collectors' starting pay is over $60K, with more time off than you can imagine. Making change is apparently highly-skilled labor in the Bay State. Hacks at state agencies run everything - and do damned little for their inflated salaries. And every two year, the citizens go to the polls and vote for more of the same. I got out of there ten years ago, and it's only gotten worse.

13 posted on 11/14/2006 12:15:11 PM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Romney is the governor. He tries to have it both ways. Take a look at Mass and ask yourself if that's what you want for all of America.


14 posted on 11/14/2006 1:03:55 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This is an issue for the people of Massachusetts to sort out...and not the business of any of the rest of us.

Don't like gay marriage? Pass a law in YOUR STATE to preclude it...and the recognition of it from other states.

There's been alot of debate on this forum on what a "real" conservative is. Well, there's a difference between a Social Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative.

A Constitutional Conservative would respect the 10th amendment and allow a great deal of diversity on extra-constituional issues among the 50 states.

A Social Conservative would use the power of the the federal government to codify restrictions or enablement of social extra-constitutional issues nationwide.

Is it possible that Social Conservatives could support the Constituional Conservative point of view under the same party banner? Will they ever settle for dealing with the social issues at a state level as the Founding Fathers intended? Would overturning Roe be enough, or will a nationwide ban on abortion be the only acceptable outcome? How about gay marriage? Drugs and alcohol? School funding? etc.

I suggest that if the Social Conservatives, who have my most profound respect, insist on legislating their agenda at the federal level they will find themselves a minority party of 20%. Certainly able to swing elections...never big enough to win a majority of states for the Presidency or a majority of either house of Congress.

But, by joinging with Constitutional Conservatives a majority would be formed which would ensure the appointment of judges, which over the long-term, would re-shape the existing order to allow probably 30 states to ban abortion outright...and other 15 to place severe restriction upon it. In short, to overturn Roe.

15 posted on 11/14/2006 1:13:02 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Actually, I'm against such things as the Federal Marriage Amendment. I was simply posting this to expose these bastards at work.


16 posted on 11/14/2006 2:15:58 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Mashed potatoes, gravy, and cranberry sauce! Wooooooo-oooooooo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Cool. We're the first two in a new majority:)


17 posted on 11/14/2006 2:24:15 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

"Romney is the governor."
_____________________________

That's what I thought. If he was firmly rooted to traditional values why didn't he move heaven and earth to bring the issue to the voters. Couldn't he have called a special session of the legislature.

The Pub party is such a mess right now. Where are the conservatives?


18 posted on 11/14/2006 3:00:17 PM PST by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"But, by joinging with Constitutional Conservatives a majority would be formed which would ensure the appointment of judges,..."
_____________________________

For how many years have the social conservatives been loyal supporters of the Pub party and what was the end result when the Pubs had a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency?
19 posted on 11/14/2006 3:05:10 PM PST by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
The result was Alito and Roberts.

Is that not enuff for you?

20 posted on 11/14/2006 6:15:04 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson